build_character

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description details the computations performed (HP, saving throws, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, prerequisites, or limitations like whether it only supports official races/classes. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists inputs and outputs. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main outputs but lacks detail on the output structure (e.g., JSON format) and potential constraints (e.g., only level 1-20, ability score order). Without an output schema, the description could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description repeats the input list ('given race, class, level, and ability scores') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool builds a D&D 5e character summary with specific inputs (race, class, level, ability scores) and outputs (HP, proficiency bonus, etc.). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browse_classes or analyze_party.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browse_races for race info) or when not to use it. The description assumes the user knows the context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.